My response is simple. If you respond then you didn't read my response. If you read it and don't respond then you are smarter than you seem. If the topic is deleted then that moderator should be given congratulations.

Maybe at other sites, but no moderator here at this site, at least not under Brian Sapeint's standards is going to suggest that a post or thread get deleted merely because someone asks annoying questions. The motif of this site is to let the reader decide. And quite frankly Brian's attitude in this respect is a hell of a lot more journalistic neutrality  than most of our modern media.

If someone, they or us, don't like something here, then don't read it or avoid the person who is bothering you. Sure his questions are quite annoying, but booting him out would send even more of a bad message, rather than allowing him to stay and explain why he is wrong.

Believe me, there was an asshole Jean Chalvin who was a complete dick who said God sent the Tsunami to Japan to be a warning to America to find God. What that prick didn't know was that my x-wife was Japanese. That was as close as I came to calling for a ban. But I forgot who, but someone here pulled me aside and said, no, he's on record and people need to see what a dick he is. I agreed, and the key is to do one of two things.

1. Explain to them why they are wrong.

OR.

2. If they insist on behaving like zoo animals, put them on display.

Now as far as "Ax", the questions are old hat, and I here them all the time, but that is par for the course. I do not see him as even coming close to being a dick, even if his questions are old and have been asked many times before by countless others.

Brian's rules are quite simple, no spam, and no criminal threats, other than that, no one is going to get banned merely for being annoying or blasphemous. So unless the rules have changed, that has been my overall long term experience here in my past 7 years here.

Maybe at other sites, but no moderator here at this site, at least not under Brian Sapeint's standards is going to suggest that a post or thread get deleted merely because someone asks annoying questions. The motif of this site is to let the reader decide. And quite frankly Brian's attitude in this respect is a hell of a lot more journalistic neutrality  than most of our modern media.

If someone, they or us, don't like something here, then don't read it or avoid the person who is bothering you. Sure his questions are quite annoying, but booting him out would send even more of a bad message, rather than allowing him to stay and explain why he is wrong.

Believe me, there was an asshole Jean Chalvin who was a complete dick who said God sent the Tsunami to Japan to be a warning to America to find God. What that prick didn't know was that my x-wife was Japanese. That was as close as I came to calling for a ban. But I forgot who, but someone here pulled me aside and said, no, he's on record and people need to see what a dick he is. I agreed, and the key is to do one of two things.

1. Explain to them why they are wrong.

OR.

2. If they insist on behaving like zoo animals, put them on display.

Now as far as "Ax", the questions are old hat, and I here them all the time, but that is par for the course. I do not see him as even coming close to being a dick, even if his questions are old and have been asked many times before by countless others.

Brian's rules are quite simple, no spam, and no criminal threats, other than that, no one is going to get banned merely for being annoying or blasphemous. So unless the rules have changed, that has been my overall long term experience here in my past 7 years here.

You are exactly right Mr. Schrödinger's cat. At any given point in time, after an infinite amount of time, there may be infinitely many days in which there is no purpose. This would indicate the higher purpose (the most common purpose) was simply to have no purpose at all, and therefore the higher purpose would be to not exist.

Good point. I stated this prematurely and in future revisions I must first state instead there will be a known quantity of purposes that match among many or most Persons, not all Persons. 

I unintentionally gave you a glimpse into my direction here, so for now we will agree on many or most instead of all. Later we can make it more complex by instituting a suggestion that people are more likely to make choices someone else has already chosen, which could result in an all persons share the same purpose scenario, but we'll take this one step at a time first before inserting equations which would require further deliberation and create potential for additional arguments before the first argument is concluded.

Correct, "high recurrence" does not infer all people since that suggestion would involve the inclusion of other functions we have not yet discussed.

It is definitely speculation whether either time or persons will increase infinitely, but since the future state is an unknown positive distance from our present state, we can surmise there is at least an indefinitely positive amount of time between both ends. In Calculus it is very common for us to understand an unknown increasingly large number as positively infinite, and continue to work with it in this Indeterminate Form to retain the accuracy of this detail rather than specify an unknown upper limit which may not be correct.

Indeed the mathematical induction only proves the existence of most commonly shared purposes and potentially a single most commonly shared purpose (which I may refer to as a higher purpose, but I see this terminology may offend atheists). The tendency of people to "gravitate" towards these purposes does not require me to claim they should do anything; illustrated by our aforementioned proof, people will seek these higher purposes naturally.

You are contesting the value of effiency since I presume effiency is of positive value. Effiency is relative to the tasks in which it is compared. Our argument is about effiently working together, not efficiently ending an argument.

The value of effiency as a group is simple to understand. If you have an individual purpose that you have difficulty obtaining (you are not efficient enough alone), then you may seek the help of another to sub-specialize the roles necessary to become efficient enough to achieve that purpose. 

We don't blow each other up because although it would be the most efficient way to end the argument, we would lose the efficiency of working together. I.e. if we could blow up every oil field it would quickly stop quarrels about oil, but the impact on other products and services would cause a net decrease in effiency, so in the end the most efficient decision here won.

Many people falsely believe they are self-sufficient and do not rely on others. The reality is this is not true unless you grow all food which you consume and found other individual means to supplement other deemed necessities. You likely already value efficiency in many facets of your life. If it's not important to you then stop buying groceries and don't store food in containers (that includes refrigerators, unless of course you can build one yourself without any other help).

There is indeed "higher purpose", although it has been implied I should refer to this as the most commonly shared purpose or something to that effect. I speculate what that purpose is with additional information to support my speculation. I did not "concede" everyone makes their own purpose, I always affirmed this as my position, you presumed as a theist I believed otherwise.

Many atheists believe life has no "purpose of life". The attack is on this notion. It is clearly possible to be an atheist and believe in the possibility of a most commonly shared purpose (as Sapient demonstrated in his post), so I hope to bridge this gap between our beliefs and by doing so will illustrate to you and others that your image of theism is preconceived.

It is not a matter of whether we "should" share purpose, but a fact which I have proven mathematically that we "will" (of a majority) share purpose over time.

The influence of religious leaders and naive followers obviously plays into any religious attitude towards suicide. If religions were to rewrite scriptures to suggest suicide were beneficial, then they would see a decline in population and furthermore a decline in their overall power and/or authority. Atheist or not, we should all be concerned if suicide were universally decreed as beneficial to mankind.

Neither do I. My question was intended to stay within the context of the topic on how atheism relates to your purpose, but if you would like me to elaborate on how one can be a theist and still deny the supernatural, I would be glad to do this in a separate topic. Eventually Sapient may even put a new title under my name.

The question was how atheism relates your purpose. It seems you do not have an answer.

Humanity may have multiple meanings in the context of your statement. If you are referring to the sum of humans on earth, and humans by definition as an organism live and die, then by becoming immortal we would cease to be human and the extinction of humanity would begin.

I have illustrated and reiterated many times an understanding of a generally atheist view which in many cases denies there is a "higher purpose" or "purpose of life" and in addition also deny "good" or "evil". Theism is quite simply the belief in at least one deity. Many have added more to this belief, much like many atheist beliefs have diverged from the original core of atheism. You indeed follow a doctrine (atheism) but your doctrine lacks the definition of moral code or purpose in life and is therefore incomplete. When you decide for yourself which moral stance to take in each choice that you make you are stepping out of atheism and becoming unintentionally characteristic of theists you may dislike. Atheism does not necessarily always lead to moral relativism because you simply revert to theistic moral definitions whenever you deem it is appropriate.

You can argue the origin and source of your morality, but you cannot argue the origin of laws. Law regulates your purposes regularly.

If your primary purpose as an organism was not survival, then you would not eat. You have stated two things in this sentence that seem to conflict - "that you do not desire immortality and if offered would decline", and "if a realistic method were identified before you died you would invest it". Are you saying that you might reconsider the offer if you're on your deathbed? Or are you offering to invest in a technology which has no direct benefit to you (since you declined the offer) but indirectly benefits you because you can greatly profit but may die before you could enjoy all the money? Why not continue to profit as an immortal and continue to enjoy it? It would stand to reason this is a more logical alternative in my opinion.

If you disregard immortality as a possibility, then you disregard all the additional variantions of joy (and sorrow) that you could experience that could only be provided to you by a future culture. You may enjoy playing games or watching movies and the range of enjoyment may seem limited, but imagine what technology you could enjoy centuries from now? Centuries ago we would have needed to all cram into a hall or some large ostentatious room simply to engage in intellectual debate. Maybe centuries from now instead of debating in an online forum you choose to instantiate a holographic representation of yourself into my office and engage in a virtual battle to address a conflict where words have failed. I would of course win as I am clearly Ip Man.

Why do you think immortality is a paranormal concept? If there was no scientific premise, I would not believe it.

“If we worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true really is true, then there would be little hope for advance.” - Orville Wright (you know who that is right?)

Welcome to the site, Ax. 

It's seems to me you are hauling all subjective purposes into a single stream of purpose, this latter serving your teleological argument which asserts the universe itself has some overarching purpose pointing to design and thus to some hypothetical first cause, the nature of which you do not say and I assume on the basis of your circuitous logic, cannot directly prove.

The idea of 'purpose' is a human construct, a label, that says much about the failings of human brains and the way they deal with their vast, real-time environment. But this idea says nothing whatever about the underlying nature of material reality. Humans see purpose everywhere as part of their relentless anthropomorphization of animal and inanimate matter. But this does not prove subjective or collective  ‘purpose’ is a universal constant or law, it simply shows humans interpret events as having purpose when this cannot be proven to be true. 

It’s also worth considering the fact that any hypothetical first cause existing outside of space-time cannot be known. Its characteristics are completely blank to us. Given this, any qualities of purposefulness we ascribe to this unknowable being are human qualities or characteristics that are without coherent meaning to our sensations and intellectual perspective. 

This opaqueness also applies directly to the central premise of your argument. What is the purpose of the universe? That it exists for humans is utterly subjective. Such an assertion cannot be proven. And further, what is purpose? What is its objective definition? Its units of measurement? How can ‘purpose’ be understood outside of the implied meaning contained in human thought processes? That the universe has any purpose sensible to humans is dubious given we cannot see the place we inhabit in its entirety, disallowing any sense of context. 

And I reject the idea that life can somehow be assigned to universal purposefulness or even has any comprehensible purpose at all. Research tells us that the processes that underpin the operation of living cells are driven by their inherent biochemical nature, they do not conform to human mental concepts of the reasons for things, or to human impressions of fixed designs, outcomes or intentions. The nature of these molecules is that they behave in particular ways when bought into contact with other chemicals or when influenced by molecular processes. 

The most complex known things in the universe are multicellular creatures - their bodies and brains. When it comes to multicellularity, the facts seem to be that through a process of natural selection of self replicating molecules in an ancient environment, simple microscopic organisms formed symbiotic relationships creating mutually beneficial living ecosystems we call prokaryotic cells. 

Over an extended period of time the bodies of animals have evolved and they comprise co-operatives of co-operatives – colonies of symbiotic cells formed by bundles of symbiotic organelles. The point is that living organisms influenced their own development through the products of their evolution, respiration and the opportunities their continued existence has offered to further development of other organisms.

The evidence clearly tells us that simple life created more complex life through a process of natural selection that discounts the need for supernatural purpose. In this universe and under these conditions, life simply is. And whatever purpose we think we see, we and all living things are arguably the result of some thoughtless biochemical process such as the oxygenation of carbon dioxide.

Also important to note here is your conflation of the apparent purposefulness of complexity based on human interpretation of the knowable material world embodied in our senses, with purposefulness that can never be viewed in a place that exists outside of our ability to perceive its existence or apply testable explanations. 

Given your contention that all things including natural selection imply purpose I assume that rather than a literal theology you take Asa Gray’s position that natural selection is not completely separate from a theistic world view. But it seems to me that like Gray, you are simplifying dizzying complexity. Like all humans you are generalizing. And like all monotheists you are applying motivated reasoning to subjects you can know nothing about.  

On a lighter note, we could argue that there is a form of survival inherent in our presence on this site. Given the central tenets of monotheism demand allegedly sinful man (ad hominem fallacy) repent on pain of eternal torment (fallacious appeal to force), it could certainly be argued our arbitrary and subjective sense of purpose here is to save our paradoxical lives-after-death from your monotheistic threats. 

I never claimed efficiency wasn't useful, I am arguing against your assumption that efficiency itself is a good goal. You said we should seek to have a common purpose so that we can be efficient. In many aspects of my life I do seek efficiency, in other aspects I don't care about efficiency. For example when it comes to doing major repairs on my car I pay someone else to do it even though I am perfectly capable of doing it myself. A professional can do it faster than I can and I don't enjoy doing it. When it comes to providing my food I do so in an extremely inefficient manner. I could go to the grocery store and buy a slab of meat, instead I hunt and when I do purchase meat I buy a live animal from a local farmer and do the slaughtering and butchering myself. It takes a significant amount of time and funds, but I enjoy it. My enjoyment is more important to me than efficiency.

So when I ask why we should be so insistent on having a common purpose and you respond "so we can be efficient" without defining exactly which purpose we are being efficient at I find your reasoning lacking. Maybe I don't want to be efficient towards reaching whatever purpose you think is higher and I certainly don't think that being efficient is enough justification to insist that everyone has the same purpose. I am content to let everyone seek their own purpose as they please, even if it is less efficient.  

Yet you have been constantly oscillating between simply saying there are "higher purposes" as in beyond the base purposes of survival and attempting to make the claim there is A higher purpose. If your claim is simply that humans have purposes for the things they do, and some humans have similar/the same purposes I don't see anyone disagreeing with you.

The gap exists solely in your head. When atheists say there is no purpose of life they mean no purpose imposed by a deity. This generally comes with the belief that different people might have different purposes. Most commonly shared simply means that a majority of people are currently seeking the same or similar purpose. So? I don't see anyone disputing that. 

Big whoop. I also share my birthday with several million people, there are a few other million people drinking coffee like I am now and when I go take a piss in a few minutes there will be a few million people seeking the same purpose of relieving their bladder at the same time. When you have almost 7 billion people of course there are going to be a bunch of people with similar/the same purpose. Where is the attack on atheism other than your straw man that atheists believe people act randomly without purpose? 

Atheism isn't a "doctrine", different atheists get their ideas of morality from a variety of sources. How your moral code developed or even whether or not you have one is irrelevant to being an atheist. Some atheists do draw their morals in an arbitrary way. So what? There is nothing about being an atheist that prevents you from being arbitrary if you wish. It isn't a theistic moral definition unless you claim the morality comes from a deity, which if you claim that you are by definition not an atheist. 

?!?!? Laws are a construct of human government. Humans use physical force to make other humans do what they want or prevent them from doing things. How is that relevant to the discussion? Law only regulates my purpose to the point I decide to follow laws, my purpose could very well involve breaking a law.

Have you seriously thought through immortality? Forever is a long time, I don't want to live forever, I would get bored. Have you ever played a video game on god mode? It is a lot less fun. Life is far more enjoyable when you know it will end. Yes, I do invest in products that are not a direct benefit to me all the time. Investing is how I make my money. I enjoy making money so I can use it for things I like or give it to people that I like. When I die my money will go to people that I care about, so even if I invested and never saw a penny of the profits for my personal use it would make me happy to know it is going somewhere I consider good. I generally enjoy giving my money away far more than I enjoy spending it on myself.

You're like the little kid that says he wants to eat ice cream for every meal forever. There can be too much of a good thing. I love life, I spend my time trying to enjoy it to the maximum. I certainly hope to live a decently long life although because of health issues I am unlikely to make it much past 70ish. Sure, if I get hit by a car today and find myself dying I might be a little disappointed that I didn't make it longer. If I had some way of going another 50 years I might take it. But to live forever? Thousands, tens of thousands of years? No way. Maybe you think you want that, and I suspect that many other people do too, maybe even a majority of people. I don't and I am sure there is a fairly decent number of people who would agree with me. So your common purpose is far from universal, even if it might be popular. 

Can you define property in a way that proves fruit is not a property or does not define multiple properties? The word fruit applies many attributes that are shared between these objects.

Property - an inherent feature; a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing. 

Milk and cheese have various properties. Some are observable, such as the color of milk. Some are testable but not necessarily apparent, such as that cheese is usually made with milk etc. Other more complex properties require a priori or posteriori knowledge. An example of this is both cheese and milk are dairy products (unless it's soy milk). A quality of most dairy products is they originate from a farm. Another quality of most dairy products is they are sold in grocery stores.

Sometimes tangible analogies are given when there is difficulty understanding the argument. Tautology - a formula which is true in every possible interpretation. If it is true in every possible interpretation, how is it irrelevant? Unless you are simply saying I am being redundant. I have proved purpose is expansive, why is redefinition as an effect necessary to reclarify something you have not disproved? The logic in which purpose has been included simply serves to prove the existance of a most commonly shared purpose.

Entity - something having real or distinct existence; a thing, esp when considered as independent of other things. An obvservation of events can be seen as a group of events independent of other groups and is therefore an entity. I do not define a set of A as not A. I define a set of A and a set of B, combined as AB=c. This does not violate the laws of thought. The sum of purposes is the simply the sum of purposes (this illustrates the law of identity btw). In these sets we can see a pattern of the most commonly recurring purposes (the intersection of sets A∩B). Russell's paradox is irrelevant.

I have previously stated the terms in which I use the word purpose (which is not subjective and clearly defined). It is also simply a matter of mathematical induction to prove humanity shall seek a common purpose. 

Purpose is simply an intended or desired result. The simplest lifeforms therefore also contain purpose.

Indeed life simply is and is the result of natural processes and will continue to be indefinitely. One of my contentions is the surivalist nature and the dilemma of death leads mankind to seek immortality. This is speculative but I have provided information supporting this argument. I have also already proved the existence of a commonly shared purpose (although Ktulu and Zaq are currently attempting to contest it).

You make a good statement here:

which in simpler terms is your way of saying as a human I cannot perceive something greater than my perception can ever comprehend. This is very true and is a common theist argument as to why you could never truly possibly comprehend the idea of a god, much less your own purpose.

For the sake of argument, since we are all prone to generalize when we decide to take viewpoints such as atheism and theism, if my generalizations are correct, then it would mean your generalizations are wrong. The argument is a debate between our generalizations until we have the teleological knowledge to remove what is unspecific and form a perfect understanding.

Whether or not you believe in monotheism is irrelevant to whether you value the prospect of immortality. As I stated in an earlier post, what better way to survive than to not die?

If you believe there is a scientific premise to "kryptonite" then I cannot help you.

On the contratry, we do not differ in this regard. You have simply not yet seen or understand my logic. Before building his first prototype, Orville must have first tested his theories on paper. If you had lived during his time and had a chance to see these formulae on paper prior to seeing a flying machine, like many others you may have believed he was illogical. Hopefully someday I will have the chance to test my immortality. Until then all I have to go on is my rationality that it is a worthy goal.

If it is useful, then it is a good goal. If you spend more time than necessary simply to eat then that is your choice, but as you stated, it is an inefficient choice.

If everyone believed as you did there would be many liberties you would not be able to enjoy. If you work or buy anything then you are part of the beehive, whether you like it or not. It is your choice if you want to a be a highly contributing bee, or a lazy bee that other more contributing bees like myself have to pick up the slack for.

In my opinion it would be nice if we could be more efficient at seeking immortality. This seems like the most rational conclusion to me, but you may disagree.

Excellent, I am glad we are in agreement.

It would be nice if I simply preconceived this gap, but as I expected, many here have proven otherwise. You and I have made good progress.

That was pretty much it. You have illustrated you don't seem to be one of the atheists who believes that.

Doctrine. (1) A particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government. (2). Something that is taught; teachings collectively. (3). A body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject.

By this definition atheism can indeed be considered a doctrine. The origin of morality and moral codes is a good subject for another topic.

The only relevance here is laws can be used to control your purpose. You can choose to break the law, but in many cases depending on the severity of the punishment will choose not to.

How could you know what would be boring if you've never experienced it? Other than this part of your statement, this is a respectable kindhearted appeal. If you enjoy giving money away and find immortality as a potential profitable investment, then maybe someday we'll do business.

I never said my personal eternal dedication would be to seek everlasting pleasures. My pursuits in fact would be very arduous and scholarly. There is much you could accomplish with an indefinitely extended life. If death were a choice rather than a certainty, I think you would find an interesting new array of options to choose from.

The pillars of Islam do not clearly define suicide as "beneficial". This is a misinterpretation used by these extremist religious leaders to leverage the beliefs and naivety of others to their benefit. It is not possible to absolutely accurately state how many adherents are suicidal at any given point in time, or how many adherents there are total at any given point in time. (FYI off topic)

We're off topic so I don't want to entertain these discussions much further, but would gladly discuss them in another topic.

Indeed it was.

Part of the definition of an organism, such as the human organism, is that it lives and dies. If we became immortal we would cease to be defined as a human organism since we no longer meet the criteria. Therefore, if all eventually chose this path, humanity would become extinct.

I never really stated any importance relating to suicide except in response to your statements. It seems suicide is an important topic to you, but unfortunately unless there is a clear relation to your purpose with regard to suicide, the morality or plausibility of suicide itself is a seperate topic.

KRYPTONITE! Come and get it... get it while it's hot!

Mr ax,

I have explained to you why your argument is a fallacy.  I respect what you are trying to do, and I will give you that it is a nice idea.  Unfortunately it doesn't even stand as logically sound.  It is an argument from semantics, a fallacy of composition and begging the question.  I won't waste anymore time trying to convince you of this because you are just polishing your turd in the hopes that it will shine.  Unfortunately it is still just a turd, I'm sorry to say.  No hard feelings, I look forward to future interactions but I have said my piece on this matter.

I have already stated multiple times my views on purpose and appreciate the various responses I have received in return. If I am wasting the time that you could be focusing on things which are more important to you, then I gladly encourage you to seek those things and cease wasting your time here.

It may be possible to achieve this perfect understanding if we cease to be human. As humans, yes, we are limited.

I agree to be monotheistic only to the extent of its base definition - the belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God. I do not make any assumptions based on this belief that our generalizations are anything more than neural signals.

With regards to immortality (and the death of the sun of some other E.L.E.), it seems quite plausible that we may at some point extend the average human lifespan idefinitely, and seek to colonize other planets, hopefully under a less destructive whim.

I do not fear death, but i also do not fully understand it and do not think anyone could currently claim such. Yes, as organisms our biological functions will eventually and gradually (in some cases more suddenly) cease to function. This presents a looming question - why?

The emperical reasoning we have to date which describes why this (process of aging and ultimately death) occurs is still being contested; there are new hypotheses still being formulated. Indeed life is much bigger than we are, and the more we understand, the more we attempt to change our very core functionality. There are potentially many ways immortality may be achievable. To me this prospect simply seems desirable.

What if I could provide working source code illustrating the model I have presented? The algorithm is a series of logic operations and is therefore logical. On first glance it may be difficult to spot a diamond in the rough; it may seem dull, darkly colored and lackluster until it is polished.

"Life extension science, also known as anti-aging medicine, experimental gerontology, and biomedical gerontology, is the study of slowing down or reversing the processes of aging to extend both the maximum and average lifespan." This is clearly not paranormal as it is within means of scientific explanation.

Faith - confidence or trust in a person or entity. 

I would safely presume Orville had much faith in his flying device(s), before attempting a potentially life-threatening ride. As I have strengthened above, my faith is also seated in reason.

The idea of immortality is merely speculation with a degree of certainty based on the analysis of existing information. This is no different than the atheist view of a god. You cannot prove a god does not exist any more than I can prove immortality is possible. In this case if my position is dogmatic, then yours is as well.

                                                            Agreed. Ciao.

How unfortunate. The same conclusion I came to after the reading the OP takes someone else 66 posts to come to. I guess some theists really are predictable.

I like to argue and read arguments. I haven't been here in a while, and if you actually would want to debate, I'd be interested.

Semihonest answer: I am here for lulz

There are Atheists because of a botched understanding of Christianity. There are no true Christians on the planet today, and haven't been since about 100 AD.

The Atheist is quite right---we are here on the planet to propagate our own kind just as every other kind does. No one made the plan , it's just the result of physical progression. The bod (as any other) is designed for foraging about and propagation, and for no other purpose. There is no particular understood reason to exist. HOWEVER, there's a problem, which extends from the installation (acquisition) of a higher intellect (ability to reason) then others on the planet. This is what gets us into trouble. Instead of remaining here naturally we now create  reason's to be here. There are two specific directions of thought to extract the reasoned purpose. 1- animal mentality, 2- human mentality. The systems in operation today are based on animal mentality, and, with this ability to reason the animal can be taken to higher levels then normal. We can now cognitively plan to overtake the other rather then pursue naturally. We can be better predators then the dog, for instance. BUT, there again---we've also developed a predator system (business and money making) over each other also--and for this we pay high consequences as you can see the state of the world.

Atheists say that that they are "human Animals"--that's where they're wrong. There's no such thing as a human animal. Human is human, animal is animal. These are two states of mind (which they dispute is so, and will argue against). If they were one state of mind combined then one would not be able to make a choice between the two. Being a choice can be made--then they are two specifically different states. Christianity is the knowledge of these characteristics, so one can choose between the two. Christianity is the human, and the animal remains the animal. Being the two are combined as one entity but yet different traits then the person is not understood, the choice cannot be made. The characteristics must be sorted to move to one of the sets. Moving to to human characteristics and putting aside the animal is what Christianity is. One ceases to be a predator, which puts one in a different world.

 The reason Atheists have a dislike for Christianity is because of it's history. But there again they haven't taken into account that what the history is--hasn't been Christianity, it's simply a continuation of animalism/Europeanism/predtorism that took on the Christian name but has really never been so.

 The reason for this site is to propagate non-religious belief, or, replace it with material sciences as the facts to be recognized rather then the spiritual. No God can be found in the material sciences---there-fore then, it' makes sense (at least to them) that only material exists. They may be right, but no proof is presented. The question is-- is thought invisible and not material. We know the it is a product of material but, is the result still material or does it transfer into the invisible. Being that material was formed first and the brain is material, and in the brain there are chemical and electrical processes, do these processes translate into an invisible , or does it remain material at a sub atomic level. If it does- then the universe contains nothing but material. If it doesn't-then the universe contains two thing only, the spiritual and material. But yet, there is no proof that what is regarded as spiritual remains material.

  What's needed to be understood is "personage". Personage is a product of a material/electrical reaction, and whether it is material or not it is the key to the problem. One's personage is made up of the previous mentioned characteristics. If one can sort them out into the human, and the animal, and choose hum,an, then you are a Christian. At present the world doesn't know the difference. That's what Christianity is for---to teach the difference. You'll notice this hasn't been done. The proper installation of Christianity/Humanism ends this world we've created and puts us back into the natural world we belong in, leaving out the animal entity and living only by the Human.

 Sited as this are a stepping stone to the end of this world, as it is these that ask the vital questions, rightly answered or not, but is needed to enter onto the final roadway to what is right by and to all.

Jean, we are NOT pagans, we are atheists. Your pathetic attempts to use words to demonize us don't work here.

Atheists don't steal shit from anyone jackass. Human behavior is not dependent on being a christian or a Buddhist or Hindu or Jew. Our species has been around 500,000 years and was evolving long before any of our modern superstitions were invented. You're just pissed that we are telling the truth that religion is man made.

Jean, if you want to jerk off over yourself, why don't you put your profile on Christian Mingle, I am sure you could find someone as bat shit insane as you.

It has been quite some time since my last post and with discretion I would (dare) say I feel compelled to reply to some of these responses. Unfortunately, I must currently withhold to remain focused on the task at hand. I will fully address these items once this task is completed.

As a quick status update for any interested, I'm working on the code Ktulu inspired me to write which will illustrate human purpose and the existence of most commonly shared purposes. Proving this may seem pointless to many in the context of this topic, which it is, but externally it will serve to contribute to a greater whole of knowledge which I have devoted myself to..

On a side note, I have decidedly shared this forum with others whom I have previously debated with. This may tweak some curiosities, but please do not ask me to reveal more information in this regard.

When I return with code in hand, I will answer any lingering uncertainties regarding my intentions and will reveal the anticlimactic "purpose" in creating this topic.

I don't think Jean Chauvin realizes how much Christians stole from Plato and the Jews.

If you're a Christian you wouldn't be calling these floks, freaks. You showed my previous point- there are no proper Christians on the planet. You can quote the bible all day around here but it will get you no where. I'm neither Theist,Deist, Atheist, or Christian, or any known religion. But, I do know what a Christian is supposed to be, which is a religion that cannot be sustained at this time.  Christianity is one's "Human side opposite one's animal  side. These floks believe they are a human animal which we (the bunch of guys I'm with) say doesn't exist. Each are a combinatio0n of human and animal traits. Put away the animal as relationship values and you become a Christian, at least basically anyways. Being the world runs on this animal idea it's pretty darned hard to maintain one's self in a Christian manner. You have to keep jumping in and out of it according to the situation. There-fore, there isn't any real Christians on this planet, not us either. There won't be until the world we live in changes it's values to "Human" and gets rid of this idea of superiority and predatorism. If you are civilized then you are made up according to State mandates that you were forced to go to school to become---just like they. Christianity and civilization are at differnet ends of the universe (so to speak). But- being unknowing doesn't make one a freak. A Christin is made by going back to how one is naturally formed by nature, A civilized person is one invented by the State (man made) for the purposes it (they) mandates.

Interesting, can you please specify?

The group of guys I'm with don't believe any God exists as commonly claimed. We are a body of independent researchers who'll study anything. We've studied the bible from 1985 to the summer of 1992. We find it quite different then one would expect.We also studies the US constitution, Magna Carta and other historical writings. There are no real Christians today and haven/t been since about 100AD. what you see in the world today as Christianity is nothing more then determinations made by Dark Age Europeans. We live in a world created by a few deceivers who rig it for their own use,, as you can see from the experiences of 2008. No matter how civilization is constructed it always gets back to it's original ideals--a few over the many.

Well, a couple statements come to mind, I'll quote from both versions of the Bible that I own:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies shall be of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" Matthew 10:34-37 NIV

"Do not think I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:34-37 ESV

"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." Matthew 12:30 NIV

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." Matthew 12:30 ESV

What, so questioning the validity of someone's claims is considered war?  By that logic, almost every scientific field is in perpetual war with itself!

Furthermore, I haven't read of any atheists making threats towards, or becoming violent towards, anyone with theistic beliefs. I have, however, read plenty of death threats and threats of violence by theists directed at atheists.

We belong to what we found. We are a team of 30 independent thinkers, who are all scientists in various fields. In our group there are 3 psycho guys, 2 physicists, 1 historian, at least 1 doctor GP, and other medical types, 1 Biologist, several engineers of various fields, and so on. We are giving what we've found to others at this time. I join the team in 1985 as a bible informant, in regards that I had many questions that I presented to the team for their analysis. I asked the questions--we all looked for answers. We completed the biblical study during the summer of 1992, June to be exact. We no longer belong to any religions or other organizations. (I may join the Elks organization for travel reasons) My birth mother also belongs to that organization. I'm an Orphanage kid. I have 2 mothers. One in Cottage Grove OR. My foster mother is in Minnesota). You know what happens when one is brought up in an Orphanage run by Nuns---right. From a small kid I was #1 in religion. But today i know they were wrong in religious terms. They also had a lot of it correct. From about 1964 to 1990 I claimed to be Atheist---sort of. Being a physicist and a bible study type (even tho I was basically Atheist) I found one cannot combine physics with the bible--it doesn't work. Hence, my encounter with "the Guys". Our studies show that everyone is wrong when it comes to religion. But, try to tell anyone, that is quite a task. When we say we're right we mean we are right for ourselves and tend to let the listener decide right and wrong for themselves. So far---everyone has us wrong. We don't fit anything you've encountered. You take us to be this, that. and the other,,, but you're wrong. we don't fit anywhere and it takes some thinking and experience with us to see that. You're only going to know us "after" you've comprehended what you're given.

  What we are saying is---Somebody finally got it right, and we're trying to show it to others---for their revue. Everyone is locked into their own opinions or that of religions and groups they belong to. Well' you could say the same for us. The #1 thing wrong in this world is---everybody's right. We find--everybody's wrong. And we found that by study, not mere emotional claims. We were all wrong too, and it took a while to "get it right". Be careful, we are not what's commonly thought.

Look at the reverse. Atheists regard Christianity as nutty. This is a common problem everyone is going to have to admit to----sooner or later. To our team the Pope is a nut, not because we don't understand him, because floks with that mental fix are abnormal, our psycho guys confirm that. Most leaders are nuts. What you have to understand is the world of people as you know it was made (not the planet) by people of hateful character, and deceivers to fool people into following them (polititians still do it today, the systems relys on constant deception, and is a continuation of the original deceptions that make the world as it is) to satisfy their ego trip of being the "boss", to be of higher grade then others, status seekers, the brainiacs ( which actually are more stupid then the average), etc. They've got everyone doing the same. We refer to this as "animalism". A buffalo herd operates the same way, and they are of lesser intellect. Anything or anyone not operating or thinking within the guide lines of civil thought would be considered a nut.

  Now- lets take a look at Atheism.  (no negatives intended) You say there's no God, but you (could) be saying or believing that from a narrow point of view. You say you are free thinkers, we disagree. We see you have more free thought then normal perhaps but----if you were free thinkers you would have found what we did, because ti takes free thinking to arrive at our conclusions. You should have been wise enough to learn that the "term " God has other applications beside a being floating around the universe. Other terms for God are "way" (as a way of being), Power, person or personage, life, I, You, Others, Government, Force, evil and good, and there are others. We would like to be able to throw out the term God, but being everyone else uses we're stuck with it. Apparently,Atheists think the bible is wrong from the botched interpretations of a few idiots, but, didn't look into the idea that the book could be right and make effort to find out if that was so, but rather not consider the info is OK, it's the appplicators that are wrong. Having a wrong interpretastion doesn't make the information wrong because the interpreters are faulty.

The over-riding term of them all is -------FORCE. The forces one (anyone) is under and, or have to operate or live within, and are subject to. We 're not referring to material forces. Those are for the material sciences. We deal with "what" forces we apply onto others, that is, the forces we are under that are applied upon one another. (these are the forces Christianity is suppose to be understanding of). As one can see, it is the relationships that we have that are the problems in our world, and create the problems in our world, that is-the mental world. Our problems come from the values under which we use to relate to each other. This relationship can be termed as "god", and god can be understood as "force", which in this case referrs to our own inner forces and compultions, and social forces. We are all under and within them, it cannot be denied, they are constantly present. With an open mind one can understand these forces and adjust to them, or at least make avoidance of them. There are forces one can avoid or adjust to, and there are those one cannot. Within our team we can refer to them as "God", but, we'd rather understand them as Force. What you need to understand is---"you" are also one of those forces, and all of those around you are a force on you.

  When we looked at the ancient terms used as "God", it was merely a misunderstanding of Force. The ancients were aware of physical and material forces and named what they didn't understand as "God" It's very simple. That term persists to today. God in this case is something beyond their control. They didn't think of themselves as a force over and of others, even tho they were. In other terms--they had a religion based on the material concepts. But, Christianity is of mental concepts and in what manner a person is, and based on two existing mental concepts, Human and Animal, which are understood to be the basics of what values one uses to relates to other. These values are the "Forces" one exists with others.

 We also understand the Atheists point of view that we are human animals. Here is where we disagree. We say-there is no such thing as a human animal. Human is of it's characteristics and Animal of it's . This we can show this by pointing out that if, if, one can make a conscious decision to use one or the other, then they have to be separate sets of mental/personal traits. IF' these are one and the same then one could not make the decision to be one or the other, and we proved among our selves (team) that one "can". If the Human Animal concept is true then no decision could be made and one is stuck with animal. That is because among the animal traits there is aggression, and one's personal aggression will overtake the human and one remains animal. In civilization it is the animal concept that wins the day, ask your congress person. Civilizations exist on the animal entity, and merely regulate how much of an animal one will be allowed to be. That is why we are nuts in your world, we don't belong to it. We're trying to be "Human" and can say----it's not easy. We understand the "forces" that are present.

Hey Old Heretic,

Are you sure they're not 30 psycho's on there? you said there were 3?

What is your little group called so I can call the up and talk to the. Groups are popping up

faster then the pimples on ass's of Brian's Washington Red Skins.

The groups sounds like any of the other faggot heretical groups out there. Give me a name and i'll get

back to you, but you're group is absolutely heretical and it would be fun to find out more.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).